CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 novembre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 80 November 2005 Sprotte v. Germany (dec.) - 72438/01 Decision 17.11.2005 [Section III] Article 34 Victim Acknowledgment of violation and discontinuation of proceedings, having regard to excessive length of criminal proceedings: inadmissible   Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for a traffic offence in August 1993. The proceedings lasted more than eleven years for four levels of jurisdiction. Due to five remittals, decisions were rendered in sixteen instances. In January 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s conviction had been disproportionate considering the excessive length of the proceedings, a delay of twenty-two months attributable to the conduct of the lower courts and the relatively insignificant charge. As the applicant’s rights to a fair criminal trial had been violated, the Constitutional Court found it unjustified to impose a criminal sanction on the applicant. The proceedings against the applicant were therefore discontinued in December 2004. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time): The Constitutional Court had expressly established that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been unreasonable. Hence, the domestic authorities had fully acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6(1). They had also afforded the applicant adequate redress for the violation: firstly, the proceedings had been discontinued, and, secondly, court fees were borne by the Treasury and the applicant reimbursed half of the necessary expenses incurred by the proceedings: lack of victim status.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes